inbody-api-mcp

get_scan

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve complete body composition, BMI, and segmental impedance metrics from an InBody scan by specifying the scan's datetime.

Instructions

Get the full metric set for a single InBody scan.

Returns the complete BCA (body composition), MFA (BMI/%fat/muscle with norm ranges), and IMP (segmental/multi-frequency impedance) blocks.

Args: raw_datetime: The scan's raw DATETIMES value (YYYYMMDDHHMMSS) from list_scans. Defaults to the most recent scan.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_scan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`raw_datetime`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying return blocks (BCA, MFA, IMP) and the default behavior (most recent scan if no parameter provided), which goes beyond annotation data. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: a one-line purpose, a two-line summary of return data, and a one-line parameter description. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has a single parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, what data it returns (blocks), and the parameter semantics. It is fully sufficient for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter raw_datetime is not described in the input schema (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by detailing its format (YYYYMMDDHHMMSS) and default behavior (most recent scan). This provides complete semantic meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves the full metric set for a single InBody scan, listing specific blocks (BCA, MFA, IMP). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_scans, the purpose is specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for retrieving details of a single scan, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives (e.g., list_scans for browsing, get_scan_count for counting). No 'when-not' or alternative suggestions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server